Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ITO Vs Shri Bhuvanesh Maheshwari (ITAT Jodhpur)
Appeal Number : ITA No.326/Jodh/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/10/2013
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Prarthana Jalan

Hon’ble Jodhpur ITAT has in the case of ITO V/s Shri Bhuvanesh Maheshwari has held that Omission of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act  is not merely a procedural irregularity and it is not curable.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

  1. SANJAY KORDE says:

    SANJAY KORDE says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    04/12/2015 at 1:47 PM
    DEAR SIR,

    1) ASSESSEE IS PVT LTD COMPANY FILED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 08/01/2013.

    2)THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED u/s 143(1)

    3) CASE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY u/s 143(2) ISSUED ON 08/08/2013 (ASSESS FILED BASIC DETAILS.ATTENDED ON 21/08/2013

    4)FRESH NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED ON 27/01/2014.RESPONSE TO NOTICE ATENDED ON 7/2/2014,17/09/2014,30/11/2014

    5) REFUND RECEIVED ON 21/02/2014.

    6) NOTICE 142(1) DT 24/12/2014 CONSEQUENT TO THE CHANGE IN TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION w.e.f (15/11/2015) which is wrong date mentioned in letter) correct date is 15/11/2014.CASE IS ASSESSED IN THE CHARCH CIT – WITH ACIT.DATE FOR COMPLIANCE 06/01/2015.

    7)ACIT DISALLOWED DEDUCTION CLAIMED US/80IC/IE , charged interst U/S 234B,234C & 234D & ALSO PROCEEDING u/s 271 (1) (C) & ORDER DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ON 27/03/2015 & ASSESSMENT MADE u/s 143(3)

    8) REASON FOR THE ABOVE ASSESS NOT FURNISHED ANY REASONABLE CASUSE THAT PREVENTED THE ASSESS TO FILE THE RETURN u/s 139(1) IN TIME.ASSESS HAS FILED THE APPLICATION WITH CBDT ON 17/03/2015 ONLY AFTER RECEIVING THE SHOW CAUSE ABOUT REJECTION OF CLAIM u/s 80ic of the act & is not suo moto.

    PLEASE SUGGEST.

  2. SANJAY KORDE says:

    DEAR SIR,

    1) ASSESSEE IS PVT LTD COMPANY FILED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 08/01/2013.

    2)THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED u/s 143(1)

    3) CASE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY u/s 143(2) ISSUED ON 08/08/2013 (ASSESS FILED BASIC DETAILS.ATTENDED ON 21/08/2013

    4)FRESH NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED ON 27/01/2014.RESPONSE TO NOTICE ATENDED ON 7/2/2014,17/09/2014,30/11/2014

    5) REFUND RECEIVED ON 21/02/2014.

    6) NOTICE 142(1) DT 24/12/2014 CONSEQUENT TO THE CHANGE IN TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION w.e.f (15/11/2015) which is wrong date mentioned in letter) correct date is 15/11/2014.CASE IS ASSESSED IN THE CHARCH CIT – WITH ACIT.DATE FOR COMPLIANCE 06/01/2015.

    7)ACIT DISALLOWED DEDUCTION CLAIMED US/80IC/IE , charged interst U/S 234B,234C & 234D & ALSO PROCEEDING u/s 271 (1) (C) & ORDER DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ON 27/03/2015 & ASSESSMENT MADE u/s 143(3)

    8) REASON FOR THE ABOVE ASSESS NOT FURNISHED ANY REASONABLE CASUSE THAT PREVENTED THE ASSESS TO FILE THE RETURN u/s 139(1) IN TIME.ASSESS HAS FILED THE APPLICATION WITH CBDT ON 17/03/2015 ONLY AFTER RECEIVING THE SHOW CAUSE ABOUT REJECTION OF CLAIM u/s 80ic of the act & is not suo moto.

    PLEASE SUGGEST.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031